Republicans... are we in Iraq because you felt guilty after the Gulf War?

Question

you feel that the elder Bush should have done this job, but didn't... and now you feel like you should correct past mistakes...

I don't know if I've ever heard anyone say this personally... I was just thinking about it the other day....

frankly... this is the most logical and sensible reason I've thought/ heard to support the war.... and I could almost understand it...

what do you guys think?

after a few responses... let me ask... so you think not invading in 91 was a good move at the time? even though we had our forces right there and weren't involved in any other areas at the time...

I mean... theoretically, Iraq could be a thriving democracy right now that could have detered 9-11 from happening (if you think Iraq has as much to do with it, as you seem to)... not that I blame the elder Bush, no one can see the future... but I wouldn't mind if that was the outcome from a such an invasion...

kj7gs: Saddam has been playing the same game since the 70s... we even supported the guy while he was doing is "madman dictator" thing during the Iran/Iraq war, because we felt he was the "lesser of two evils"...

you can pretend he started in 91 if you want too... but I don't think we're all that naive

nicolasraage: how do you back up "feelings"... because that's what I'm asking about...

and when was the last time you cited a fact?... hahaha

leo s: we have a friend? have you heard what Iraq's elected members are saying about the U.S.... doesn't sound very friendly...

Answer 1

i agree, if it was such a moral conservative cause of justice and humanitarian compassion.....why leave in 91'

Secondly, If hated Sadam for killing his people why wait till 91 that happened in the 80's, and not only that but why isn't he on trial for gassing his people?

he is on trial for some other stuff.

Answer 2

Conservatives don't make decisions based solely on emotions. I agree and so do most conservatives, that we should have taken out Saddam in 91, but Bush 41 cowed to the UN. The same UN that had members who were involved in the oil for food scandal where no one really got fed but Saddam's pockets. So, when we accomplished our goal of protecting Kuwait, and Bush 41 decided to go home, we did not end the war, but negotiated a cease fire with Saddam where he would let inspectors in to check his country for wmds and other illegal activities. 10 years and 17 resolutions went by and the twin towers were struck. Everything changes. Bush 43 has an obligation to protect this country so he went to the UN for yet another resolution for Saddam to comply with the cease fire agreement. Saddam denied the inspectors full access and in a post 9/11 world, we could no let this go on any longer. Now you will say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and I will tell you that I never said it did. We just took Iraq a bit more serious. If you were going to fight against terrorists, where would you do it? It also allowed us to place our troops in one area and the terrorists are coming to us. Now we have a friend in the Middle of the Middle East on Iran's border. Looking like a good strategy, now.

Answer 3

The mission in "91 was to kick Saddam's forces out of Kuwait, nothing more. The U.N. coalition, not Bush and co., completed this mission. Between then and 2003, Saddam broke the peace accord and defied 17 U.N. resolutions. Bush Jr. was willing to do what the U.N. wasn't, back up their words. That is the only reason we went into Iraq in the first place.

Answer 4

Dude, we're in Iraq because saddam is a dick. He killed thousands of his own people, was trying to make nukes, was best friends with Usama, and helped him plan the attacks on 9/11. And yes we should correct past mistakes. If we didn't take him out we'd be making more mistakes. All the terrorist are going to Iraq to kill Americans. We've killed about 20,000 terrorist and they've only killed about 1200 of us (all the other deaths are due to non-combat accidents). So would you rather have the US Army fighting them in Iraq, or would you like to fight them in your own streets. If you don't support your leader (Bush) then you should leave this country. Move to Canada or that sissy country France.

Have a good day, stay frosty.

Answer 5

For 10 years after the first Gulf War, Saddam flouted UN resolutions, kept inspectors from doing their jobs, and “lit up” our aircraft in the no-fly zone. We were taking out radar sites for years before G.W. took action. How many Americans realized that hostilities didn't stop just because it was relegated to the back pages of newspapers that would print what Saddam was doing. Bush Sr. did his job. Bush Jr. did his. We tried diplomacy to take out his will to fight. It didn't work. So the military took out his capability to fight. We still have a commitment to victory, achieved by our continued presence in Iraq. If the Democrats want all the soldiers home, will they declare victory in order to do so? I can't accept anything less as an American citizen.

Answer 6

No sir/ma'am "g".....we are in Iraq because after 9/11 Saddam praised the attacks....even if he wasn't directly involved with them, Bush said we would "hunt down and detroy not only terrorists, but those who HARBOR AND SUPPORT THEM"....by Saddam's cheering and applauding of the attacks, on top of his defiance of nearly two dozen UN resolutions and murdering of millions of his own people, he deserves what he got....as for HOW we did it, i think we needed more force up front that way there would be no chance for an insurgency after we toppled Baghdad....

Answer 7

Apparently during Gulf War 1 H. Norman Schwarzkopf wanted to head directly to Baghdad and take out SH. However the elder Bush said our job was done, thus prolonging the situation. Similar to how Patton wanted to have it out with the Russians immediatly following WW2. And we all know how that turned out.

Answer 8

The first Bush was limited by the UN from going into Iraq so your assumption while sounding good is not correct

Answer 9

Republicans sense sorrow for Iraq - that the persons there have been led by using a tyrant who not in ordinary words killed lots of the persons he changed into to blame for governing, and performed video games with their futures by using pretending to have guns of mass distruction, yet who inspired, helped prepare, and supported terror communities whose techniques were corresponding to his own. What guilt is there in helping human beings to be free of this variety of ruler? The guilt may be for doing not some thing to assist.

Answer 10

no we are in iraq becuase the killed americans plus we are helping them and if we pull out now every thing the men and women died for will be lost